K.SURENDRA MOHAN
B. SREENIVASAN – Appellant
Versus
INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN – Respondent
The petitioner is the owner of a Tata truck bearing Regn.No.KL7/C-6195. The vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance dated 26.11.2004 issued by the second respondent. The policy is Exhibit P1. The petitioner also had a goods carriage permit Exhibit P2 that was valid for the period from 28.09.2000 to 27.09.2005. On 15.01.2005, when the lorry was parked near a quarry, by the side of a hill where quarrying operations were in progress, a huge rock fell on the lorry and the vehicle was totally damaged. Since the petitioner's vehicle was covered under a comprehensive insurance policy valid up to 25.11.2005, the petitioner claimed the value of the vehicle from the second respondent. However, the claim of the petitioner was repudiated.
2. The petitioner challenged the repudiation of his claim before the first respondent. The complaint was taken on file, the matter was heard after the parties entered appearance and thereafter Exhibit P3 order was passed. As per Exhibit P3 order, it has been found by the first respondent that, the repudiation of the petitioner's claim was justified for the reason that, the petitioner's vehicle did not have a Fitness Certificate at the time o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.